Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@vikorr,

Quote:

...he then calls that 'certainty' he feels fact, rather than his opinion...

That gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. It's the "true believer" show.

It's the style of "debate" where intentionally provocative assertions are made, objections are summarily denounced, nothing practical is ever discussed, and no argument proceeds much further than appeals to abstractions like "freedoms" and "rights". And while those are important concepts, they are also subjectively-based. Different people will have their own different interpretations of abstract, aspirational terms — on different days.

Just claiming to be right because "I'm smarter than you", "freedoms", and "my way is the highway" doesn't really settle anything — that's why we see the exact same words and phrases used again and again. The conversation never moves. Nothing that will ever be raised in contention will ever be accepted because for a true believer discussion is not a matter of seeking truth as much as it is a matter of keeping the faith.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

The reason for this is that Ollie is always given the short side of the stick.

It may well be a contributing factor to his decision making process - while he maintains sole responsibility for the decision to engage in obvious bias.

While all lives matter, the concept that a minority or opressed group cannot form a movement to say their lives matter...is likely said from a position of privelage. It is every persons right, and every groups right, to fight for equality. Of course many such movements are hijacked by special interest groups who have agendas beyond the initial movement.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Yes. And the press glorifies the hijackers and the peaceful protesters are ignored. Or, in the case of Jan 6 the 99 per cent of peaceful protesters get lumped in with the few violent people and all are called "insurrectionists". Then, a wall has to be put up by these power hungry progressives because a few people got out of hand.
Let's work together to help each other live abundant lives as Americans. That includes having discussions with each other as you and Ollie do.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

The press I notice, does that for all unpopular movements - or anything for which they think they can get emotive reactions out of their readers.

Healthy discussions require willingness on both parties to look at all sides of an argument. Healthy decision making also requires this. Discussions in good faith are usually productive in some shape or form.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

You start to go serioously off the rails about 170. The economy crashed not because blacks coulkd buy houses but because financial institutions gutted oversight and discovered they could make kuge a,pimts pf ,pmeu fpr the,selves writing riskier mortgages which they aggressively sold to EVERYBODY, not just blacks, asnd they convinced themselves that bndling mokrtgages woulkd eliminate riskbecause the good ones would insulate losses from the few bad ones. Which only worked when kthere were few bad ones,when they oversold them for their own ;profits, the number of bad ones soared and the risks multiplied anda domino effect wrecked the world economy.
Trump did an awful job. The majority of the country did not want him or the snake oil he peddled, but we got him anyway. He hated everyone who didn't odolize him, he spread divisiveness for everyonent a white uneducated male, and it caught up with him, so he was voted out again, this time with no aquestion he lost. But he spread falsehoods liberlly and tried to steal the elkction for himself, which culminated in the insurrection on Jan.6, which his aides say he loved and was glued to the tube as his goading unfolded in the mob at the capito And of course his cockup in the pandemic led to close to half a million deaths. So far. The violent mob at the capitol were just a part of all the de protestors but they ALL came to DC kintent on stealing a free amd faor e;ectopm and turning it into a victory for trump..He lied incessantly, they're all guilty whether or not they stormed the barricades,

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You are correct when you point out that it was not just for blacks that Dems pressured banks into making poor decisions on loans. People lied on their loan application and banks accepted it.
Then the Fed gave wellfare to everyone and their mother. For the most part capitalism gave way to a form a socialism. Banks, homeowners, etc were bailed out. Savers suffered due to stupid fiscal policy and very loose monetary policy.
A similar thing happened in 2020 when the Virus hit. The Fed saved the day. However, I do wonder if a payment day is not inevitable.
I think that Biden's best move is making Yellen Treasury Secretary. Still I wonder if there will be economic consequences in the future.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

The current fiscal policy, is just about every advance nation, is to borrow. It wouldn't be an issue if it were a short term policy, but governments have shown little interest in anything else for the better part of 2 decades.

It is of course, entirely unsustainable.

The other issue is, governments are expecting the populace to bear the brunt of the borrowings, and not the corporations. If you go through the U.S.' Whitehouse records, in the 1930's business & population contributed roughly equal amounts to federal revenue. These days the population contributes around 9 times more than business. That is business subsidisation by stealth over a long period of time. The government through its long term actions is showing exactly who it serves. And it can only result in one thing - the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Put them together, and you get a picture of where this is all heading.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

It is an interesting point.
Where does the small business person fit in these statistics?

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Anyway, I find Ollie to be quite accurate in his facts.

1 Reply

"The rich get richer, the poor get the picture".

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

He's not. Most of his "facts" are indistinguishable from totally biased opinion and it is never clear which is which, and of course he maintains you cannot call an opinion false because it is purely in the mind of the opiner. Challenge his "fact" and he says it's opinion, so has not truth value. Weaseling out.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

You've got it wrong. Financial institutions weren't pressured by dems. they made huge risky loans entirely on their won because they made huge commissions for themselves and their employees who wrote the loans. They made billions and skated away. Look at the WaMu investigations. Their employees consistently misrepresented the mortgages andloans they were making, and told unspohisticated clients to put down inaccurate info in the forms, or did it themselves. Not Democrats, greed-head financial institutions.

dm

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

My 'issue' with oralloy in these type of discussions is:
- he concedes almost absolutely to only one side of subjective arguments
- reworded - he gives virtually no credence to the other side in subjective arguments

Wrong. I give no credence to either side. I instead rely on provable facts.

vikorr wrote:

- many times, when something cannot be known for certain, he draws a conclusion and calls it certain
- he then calls that 'certainty' he feels fact, rather than his opinion;

I am probably much better at drawing conclusions than you are.

But just because you are not able to comprehend something that I can comprehend, that doesn't make my conclusions invalid.

vikorr wrote:

and
- multiple times this forum, the above behaviour falls only in favour of the white person

There is nothing wrong with siding with white people when they are in the right.

vikorr wrote:

There is an obvious bias evidenced in his writings.

No there isn't.

Not unless you mean my bias towards truth and justice.

vikorr wrote:

I don't think he consciously goes about doing this, in that I do think he tells himself that it is just coincidence that his writings have favoured the white people over the black people each and every time.

Not a coincidence. Every person that I defend is entirely in the right.

vikorr wrote:

But he also refuses to look at the bias he displays (he can barely bring himself to acknowledge any other aspect of subjective arguments). And it is his responsibility to look after his own mind, so that he can identify when he is engaging in obvious biases.

I display no bias.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

That gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. It's the "true believer" show.

It's the style of "debate" where intentionally provocative assertions are made, objections are summarily denounced, nothing practical is ever discussed, and no argument proceeds much further than appeals to abstractions like "freedoms" and "rights". And while those are important concepts, they are also subjectively-based. Different people will have their own different interpretations of abstract, aspirational terms -- on different days.

Just claiming to be right because "I'm smarter than you", "freedoms", and "my way is the highway" doesn't really settle anything -- that's why we see the exact same words and phrases used again and again. The conversation never moves. Nothing that will ever be raised in contention will ever be accepted because for a true believer discussion is not a matter of seeking truth as much as it is a matter of keeping the faith.

So what should be done when progressives refuse to ever accept facts and reality?

I've suggested Chinese-style reeducation camps before. Is that the only good option for dealing with progressives?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It may well be a contributing factor to his decision making process - while he maintains sole responsibility for the decision to engage in obvious bias.

I engage in no bias.

vikorr wrote:

While all lives matter, the concept that a minority or opressed group cannot form a movement to say their lives matter...is likely said from a position of privelage. It is every persons right, and every groups right, to fight for equality. Of course many such movements are hijacked by special interest groups who have agendas beyond the initial movement.

In the case of Black Lives Matter, they were rotten from the start.

On day one, BLM were demanding that police officers be prevented from defending themselves when black people murder them.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

He's not.

That is incorrect. My facts are all accurate.

MontereyJack wrote:

Most of his "facts" are indistinguishable from totally biased opinion and it is never clear which is which,

They are quite distinguishable.

This is a fact: Progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties.

This is a fact: The only reason why progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties is because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

This is an opinion: Progressives are demented.

This is an opinion: Progressives are evil.

This is an opinion: Progressives belong in Chinese-style reeducation camps.

MontereyJack wrote:

and of course he maintains you cannot call an opinion false because it is purely in the mind of the opiner. Challenge his "fact" and he says it's opinion, so has not truth value. Weaseling out.

It's not my fault that you only challenge my opinions and never challenge my facts.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Neither of those "facts" are in fact facts. They are as much opinions as the demented opinions you agree are your opinions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your opinion, not fact, about BLM has been wrong every time you offer it. To not want police to wrongfully kill their fellow people, which is their demand, is in no way logically the same as wanting to kill police. That is simply the reality.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Wrong. I give no credence to either side.

Wrong. as just one example amongst many, for Mr Cooper, you said he was threatening Ms Cooper to the point that she would be justified shooting him. I provided that his 'threat' was very vague and could have meant several different things
- you patently ignored all other possible meanings other than the one you wished to focus on

I listed behaviours displayed by Mr Cooper, that gave context to interpreting the vague 'threat'. In the video he was:
- calm in behaviour
- calm in voice
- did not apporach her
- asked her not to approach him
You patently ignored all these behaviours except distance, where

- you claimed he did approach her
I pointed out that his own words (which you use as evidence he approached her) did not say he approached her, and that in the video he obviously was telling her not to approach him, and he never approached her
- you patently ignore that you were wrong

You then call him a thug... when he has displayed no violent behaviours, but calm, rational ones. In the other thread, you say she would be justified in shooting him... when he displayed no violent behaviours, only calm and rational ones.

You display extreme bias in cases like this. This isn't arguable - you actually display it in writing. You certainly can't point out where you didn't ignore the above each and every time.

This is just like you being asked to show a post where you support a black persons side when a white person is involved in conflict with them. You can't do it because you haven't ever supported a black persons side - only the white persons side. And it is for the same reason - you only give credence to one side of the story - which just happens to always be the white persons side.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You've got it wrong. Financial institutions weren't pressured by dems. they made huge risky loans entirely on their won because they made huge commissions for themselves and their employees who wrote the loans. They made billions and skated away. Look at the WaMu investigations. Their employees consistently misrepresented the mortgages andloans they were making, and told unspohisticated clients to put down inaccurate info in the forms, or did it themselves. Not Democrats, greed-head financial institutions.

I would like to use this as an example of what you constantly do to Ollie:
(1) Ollie states a FACT
(2) you state "Ollie, you have it wrong"
(3) you state a truth that supports your position
(4) you pretend that #3 makes #1 untrue
(5) you tell Ollie that he doesn't state facts

In you response to me, you stated that banks got greedy. However, this did not negate the fact that Dems put great pressure on banks to make loans to unqualified home seekers.
These Dems started the process that led to the housing crisis.

Once again, Ollie states facts. You simply refuse to acknowledge these facts.

dm

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know